IRC log of tagmem on 2002-05-20
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:47:47 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 18:47:51 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #tagmem
- 18:47:54 [Ian]
- Ian has changed the topic to: TAG: http://www.w3.org/2002/05/20-tag
- 18:48:04 [Ian]
- zakim, this is TAG
- 18:48:05 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'TAG'
- 18:48:08 [Ian]
- zakim, this is tag
- 18:48:09 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
- 18:48:20 [Ian]
- zakim, this is TAG_weekly
- 18:48:21 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'TAG_weekly'
- 18:48:51 [Norm]
- zakim, list conferences
- 18:48:52 [Zakim]
- I see SW_CG()1:00PM
- 18:49:03 [Norm]
- Uh oh
- 18:49:51 [Ian]
- zakim, this is tag
- 18:49:52 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
- 18:50:09 [Ian]
- zakim, this is probably tag
- 18:50:10 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'probably tag'
- 18:50:24 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 18:50:25 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I don't know what conference this is
- 18:50:30 [Ian]
- zakim, this is tag
- 18:50:31 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
- 18:51:04 [Norm]
- Ian: something's wrong with Zakims list of conferences: maybe because he thinks we still meet at 10:30?
- 18:51:18 [Ian]
- zakim, this conference is tag
- 18:51:19 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'tag'
- 18:51:26 [Ian]
- zakim, this conference will be tag
- 18:51:27 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian
- 18:51:37 [Ian]
- mouahhhahhhah
- 18:51:43 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 18:51:44 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ian, I don't know what conference this is
- 18:51:51 [Ian]
- Doh. I oughta...
- 18:52:14 [Norm]
- lol
- 18:52:25 [Norm]
- yeah, it will be, but ... when?
- 18:54:26 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
- 18:54:32 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 18:54:35 [Ian]
- zakim, this is TAG_Weekly
- 18:54:36 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian
- 18:54:41 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 18:54:42 [Zakim]
- I see Ian
- 18:55:50 [Ian]
- Web site not responding?
- 18:56:06 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 18:56:59 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 18:57:06 [Ian]
- zakim, ??P3 is Norm
- 18:57:07 [Zakim]
- +Norm; got it
- 18:58:13 [Stuart]
- Stuart has joined #tagmem
- 18:58:29 [Stuart]
- Just Dialing
- 18:58:44 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 19:00:44 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 19:00:55 [Ian]
- zakim, ??P5 is Roy
- 19:00:56 [Zakim]
- +Roy; got it
- 19:00:56 [Zakim]
- +TBray
- 19:01:05 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 19:01:06 [Zakim]
- I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray
- 19:01:25 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 19:01:28 [Ian]
- Regrets: Paul, David, Chris.
- 19:01:37 [Ian]
- Zakim, ??P7 is Stuart
- 19:01:38 [Zakim]
- +Stuart; got it
- 19:01:42 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 19:01:43 [Zakim]
- I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart
- 19:01:55 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:01:58 [Ian]
- zakim, Chris is not here.
- 19:01:59 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'Chris is not here.', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help
- 19:02:09 [TBray]
- TBray has left #tagmem
- 19:02:09 [Ian]
- zakim, Chris sent regrets
- 19:02:11 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'Chris sent regrets', Ian. Try /msg Zakim help
- 19:03:11 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:03:22 [DanC]
- DanC has joined #tagmem
- 19:03:22 [TBray]
- Howdy
- 19:05:26 [skw]
- skw has joined #tagmem
- 19:06:13 [Stuart]
- zakim who is here
- 19:06:18 [DanC]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 19:06:19 [Zakim]
- I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart
- 19:06:47 [Ian]
- Dan, are you calling?
- 19:06:58 [timmit]
- Let's start when DanC has joined.
- 19:07:02 [timmit]
- 0TAG
- 19:07:46 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:08:01 [Ian]
- ==============
- 19:08:05 [Ian]
- zakim, who's here?
- 19:08:06 [Zakim]
- I see Ian, TimBL, Norm, Roy, TBray, Stuart, DanC
- 19:08:14 [timmit]
- ==============================
- 19:08:18 [timmit]
- MEETING STARTS
- 19:08:21 [Ian]
- 1. Accept previous minutes?
- 19:09:08 [DanC]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0505-agenda
- 19:09:14 [DanC]
- $Revision: 1.17 $ of $Date: 2002/05/09 19:20:58 $ by $Author: connolly $
- 19:09:41 [Ian]
- Minutes from 22 April, 5 May accepted.
- 19:10:09 [Ian]
- ===
- 19:10:16 [Ian]
- Comments on agenda?
- 19:10:26 [Ian]
- SW: Switch 6/5
- 19:10:35 [Ian]
- (administrivia)
- 19:10:50 [DanC]
- pointer to 22Apr minutes?
- 19:11:12 [DanC]
- was that supposed to be 29Apr? http://www.w3.org/2002/04/29-tag-summary
- 19:11:17 [Ian]
- Sorry 29 April.
- 19:11:24 [Ian]
- =======
- 19:11:34 [Ian]
- Comments on TAG@AC meeting / WWW 2002?
- 19:11:40 [DanC]
- is there anything written about the TAG session at WWW2002.
- 19:11:47 [DanC]
- s/./?/
- 19:11:55 [Ian]
- TBL: AC meeting was fairly flat as they go.
- 19:12:09 [Ian]
- TBL: Majority of comments at TAG session were about w3c process.
- 19:12:19 [Ian]
- SW: I didn't hear any bad feedback from the AC.
- 19:13:02 [Ian]
- DC: Perhaps comments from AC meeting on "dependencies" will re-stimulate DO.
- 19:13:04 [Ian]
- ------------------
- 19:13:14 [Ian]
- Review of action items.
- 19:14:15 [Ian]
- IJ: Integrate/combine one-page summaries. Done?
- 19:14:38 [Ian]
- TBL: I don't think this is done; IJ has not integrated text from DO (3), CL (4).
- 19:15:06 [Ian]
- TBL: So not integrated yet.
- 19:15:22 [Ian]
- Deadline for this action item: 27 May.
- 19:15:35 [Ian]
- TBL: Take question of HTTP Query to W3C/IETF liaison (issue whenToUseGet-7)
- 19:15:57 [DanC]
- I propose to withdraw timbl's QUERY action. ( I thought we already did withdraw it)
- 19:16:33 [Ian]
- TBL: I propose we withdraw for lack of energy and are focusing on other things.
- 19:16:40 [Ian]
- []Withdrawn]
- 19:16:58 [Ian]
- TBL: Draft comments on RDF+HTML for namespace documents.
- 19:17:05 [Ian]
- IJ: TBL wrote something.
- 19:17:52 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/04/htmlrdf
- 19:18:19 [Ian]
- [Done]
- 19:18:28 [Ian]
- TBL: Take uriMediaType-9 finding to IETF and IANA.
- 19:19:01 [Ian]
- DC: As a rule, we do grass roots; I think this is an exception.
- 19:19:25 [Ian]
- DC: TBL, I suggested contacting Don Eastlake, Larry Masinter.
- 19:20:49 [Ian]
- TBL: I will do this, and cc www-tag.
- 19:21:09 [Ian]
- TBL: Negotiate more of IJ time for arch doc
- 19:22:19 [Ian]
- TBL: I've mentioned to Steve Bratt, regarding time exchange with AB.
- 19:22:27 [DanC]
- Stuart, pls remind folks that the responses to action item review are: "done", "please continue", and "please withdraw". Discusstion that doesn't start with one of those is out of order.
- 19:23:07 [Ian]
- Leave open IJ time.
- 19:23:15 [Ian]
- CL: Add concern regarding non-western characters to the POST scenario (issue whenToUseGet-7)
- 19:23:17 [Ian]
- Not done.
- 19:23:24 [Ian]
- DC: Write up limitations in draft finding for whenToUseGet-7 about limitations in SOAP
- 19:23:37 [Ian]
- DC: I claim victory in whenToUseGet-7.
- 19:24:36 [Ian]
- DO/DC/CL: Polish up DO's .1-level draft and find out what's going on with XForms
- 19:24:45 [Ian]
- TB: That's partially done.
- 19:24:56 [Ian]
- SW: I think DO talking to XForms people at AC meeting.
- 19:25:07 [Ian]
- [The proper list of people for this action is TB/DO/CL]
- 19:25:15 [Ian]
- DC: Add pointer to PROPfind in section on limitations/problems in whenToUseGet-7 finding
- 19:25:19 [Ian]
- DC: Done.
- 19:25:25 [Ian]
- DC: Publish whenToUseGet-7 finding
- 19:25:31 [Ian]
- DC: Not done since missing piece from CL.
- 19:25:36 [Ian]
- DC: Point out in whenToUseGet-7 that WSDL and SOAP primer should take this into account.
- 19:25:37 [Ian]
- Done.
- 19:25:47 [Ian]
- DC: Send a message to the XML Protocol WG comments list to point to resolution regarding GET and SOAP 1.2
- 19:25:48 [Ian]
- Done.
- 19:25:55 [Ian]
- TB: Start discussion on www-tag about nature of namespace documents @@exact topic of action unclear@@.
- 19:27:04 [Ian]
- TB: See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0048.html
- 19:27:31 [Ian]
- Done.
- 19:27:38 [Ian]
- DC: Edit minutes of 5 May teleconf, make public
- 19:27:39 [Ian]
- Done.
- 19:28:15 [Ian]
- On my qname/namespace email, one conclusion is that people didn't respond so maybe not important.
- 19:28:23 [DanC]
- Bray: not a lot of response; maybe that's an answer in itself, to the question of "how important is this?"
- 19:28:28 [Ian]
- SW: I will encourage Brian McBridge to pipe up on the thread.
- 19:28:52 [Ian]
- NW: I have an action to review Charmod document. [Put back in action item list. CL does too...]
- 19:28:54 [Ian]
- ====================
- 19:28:56 [DanC]
- Norm, Stu, "we all" have not accepted any actions. Actions are assigned to individuals.
- 19:29:02 [DanC]
- s/Norm/No/
- 19:29:03 [Stuart]
- s/McBridge/McBride
- 19:29:06 [Ian]
- Proposed issue from Steve Zilles
- 19:29:22 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0042.html
- 19:29:43 [Ian]
- NW: Have single set of semantic properties among css, xslt, svg, ...
- 19:30:23 [Ian]
- NW: SZ noticed recently that CSS WG has decided to rename some properties first named by the XSL WG. SZ argues that renaming properties is a bad idea.
- 19:30:35 [Ian]
- TB: What would the TAG do here?
- 19:30:49 [Ian]
- TB: E.g., one-page finding that W3C should do what it takes to get consistency?
- 19:31:05 [Ian]
- NW: Yes, important that there be a single, unified consistent set, not slight differences among vocabularies.
- 19:31:19 [Ian]
- NW: SZ wants a process in place for ensuring that this is done.
- 19:31:30 [Ian]
- TB: I am in favor of this finding: "They must..."
- 19:31:47 [DanC]
- any volunteers to own it?
- 19:32:10 [Ian]
- Resolved: Accept this is as issue formattingProperties-19.
- 19:32:10 [Norm]
- me
- 19:32:21 [Ian]
- Assigned to: NW.
- 19:32:32 [Ian]
- NW: I'll see if CL wants to own jointly.
- 19:32:53 [Ian]
- Action NW: Write a draft finding for this issue.
- 19:33:13 [Ian]
- ---------------------
- 19:33:18 [Ian]
- Some issue prioritization:
- 19:34:32 [Ian]
- SW: We have a time constraint on charmodReview-17
- 19:34:52 [Norm]
- what do you doubt, DanC?
- 19:35:01 [Ian]
- SW: I'll put a slot for charmod on next week's agenda.
- 19:35:19 [DanC]
- I doubt we'll reach a TAG position on charmod by then.
- 19:35:55 [Ian]
- TB: For formattingProperties-19, the real question is why didn't CSS WG reuse name? Anything substantial there? If not, we can probably handle this with no work.
- 19:36:07 [DanC]
- ah.
- 19:36:11 [Ian]
- TB: So NW and CL should find out right away why CSS WG proceded as they did.
- 19:36:24 [Ian]
- ======================
- 19:36:26 [Ian]
- Technical Agenda
- 19:36:44 [Ian]
- =======================
- 19:36:51 [Ian]
- 1. Media Type Finding and feedback (TAG only, aim to conclude)(~10min)
- 19:36:55 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime
- 19:38:20 [Ian]
- Feedback: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Apr/0050.html
- 19:38:45 [Ian]
- TB: I agreed with SW's comments by and large. Ensure proper capitalization of should/must in last para.
- 19:39:27 [Ian]
- SW: Presumably also bad for things other than just response headers.
- 19:39:35 [Ian]
- RF: Say "message body" and "message headers".
- 19:39:53 [DanC]
- "* The Unicode encoding of a response body (XML document) is inconsistent with the value of the charset parameter in the response headers."
- 19:39:58 [DanC]
- s/response/message/
- 19:40:00 [Ian]
- TB: Please number sections of findings.
- 19:40:03 [DanC]
- i.e. request or response
- 19:40:12 [Ian]
- "* The Unicode encoding of a response body (XML document) is inconsistent with the value of the charset parameter in the response headers. See SVG diagram for determining character encoding."
- 19:40:24 [Ian]
- s/response body/message body/
- 19:40:41 [Ian]
- TB: Last para - capitalize, and cite RFC 2119
- 19:42:25 [Ian]
- Action IJ: One editorial pass. Send to www-tag. Allow one week. If no substantive comments, then considered done.
- 19:42:57 [Roy]
- Is it possible to have cvs commit summary (diff) sent to tag?
- 19:43:06 [Ian]
- There seems to be consensus that we can use this process for findings in general: send out for comments.
- 19:44:00 [Stuart]
- ?q?
- 19:44:02 [Stuart]
- q?
- 19:44:58 [Ian]
- --------------------------------------
- 19:45:05 [Ian]
- # New Draft Finding on qnameAsId-18 any immediate feedback for Norm?
- 19:45:10 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html
- 19:45:23 [DanC]
- sorry, I am reading http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html for the 1st time
- 19:45:36 [DanC]
- is this thing on? I suspect I'm disconnected from IRC
- 19:45:51 [Ian]
- Hi DanC
- 19:46:52 [Ian]
- IJ: Please clarify antecedent of "this usage" in section 3.
- 19:47:07 [Ian]
- TBL: The finding makes an observation but doesn't say what to do.
- 19:47:28 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:47:38 [Ian]
- NW: There are some recommendations (section 4)...
- 19:47:41 [TBray]
- Hey, mozilla chat can now do port 6665! Thanks Dan
- 19:48:28 [Ian]
- NW: I will make some more concise arch recommendations.
- 19:50:11 [Ian]
- NW: I will add some specific recommendations at the end.
- 19:51:11 [Ian]
- DC: I think the finding reflects our initial sense to warn people about problems and consequences.
- 19:51:13 [Ian]
- ====================
- 19:51:14 [Ian]
- Arch document.
- 19:51:16 [TBray]
- Norm... you can take "perhaps" out of the ref to XSLT
- 19:51:33 [Norm]
- ok
- 19:51:52 [timmit]
- Ian: I took soem of TimBL's text and tried to integretae it
- 19:52:09 [timmit]
- Didn't get very far ... the result is not consistent.
- 19:52:32 [timmit]
- dan and I were talking about good bahviour stuff .. maybe there is too mcuh for this ocument.
- 19:52:35 [timmit]
- at this phase.
- 19:52:54 [timmit]
- (Good style)
- 19:53:14 [timmit]
- Currently this has special markup and so can be hidden from view.
- 19:53:21 [DanC]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0508-intro $Date: 2002/05/17 22:04:59 $
- 19:54:03 [timmit]
- Given TimB's comments I pared it down. Given YimBL's I added some.
- 19:54:04 [DanC]
- point of order: what was our homework? no agenda message was sent to www-tag, so it's not clear what version we're expected to have read
- 19:54:12 [Ian]
- TB: I'm having trouble seeing this as the web arch document.
- 19:54:20 [Ian]
- Yes, agenda message was sent to www-tag:
- 19:54:33 [timmit]
- (note homework is in the agenda on the web, danc)
- 19:54:37 [Ian]
- TB, RF: Not confortable with this document.
- 19:55:08 [Ian]
- Email to tag on 20 may agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0059.html
- 19:55:18 [Ian]
- TB: Perhaps ref doc and tutorial need to be developed in paralle.
- 19:55:20 [timmit]
- q+
- 19:55:23 [Ian]
- s/paralle/parallel/
- 19:55:50 [Stuart]
- q?
- 19:56:51 [Stuart]
- q?
- 19:57:04 [timmit]
- TimBL: If this is to eb a tutorial, then there may have to be several, for diferent audeinces. (SW developers, WG members, students of CS, ...)
- 19:57:35 [Ian]
- IJ: I am not sure that crisp expression will speak to intended audience.
- 19:57:48 [Ian]
- TBL: There are lots of different audiences. You'll probably end up with different audiences for each (section).
- 19:58:10 [Ian]
- TBL: I agree with everyone. People have said that the DesignIssues are problematic because of spelling, lack of examples, etc.
- 19:58:14 [DanC]
- [I prefer www-tag. let's not not *ever* say to www-tag "we already discussed that in tag@w3.org, and ..."]
- 19:58:36 [Norm]
- q+
- 19:58:38 [Ian]
- TBL: I think it's a good idea to keep this marked up so that the normative parts are very crisp.
- 19:58:48 [Stuart]
- q?
- 19:58:51 [Norm]
- q-
- 19:59:01 [Ian]
- ack Timmit
- 19:59:22 [Ian]
- NW: I have my reservations about having a single document serve both purposes.
- 20:00:12 [Ian]
- TB: I've never been happy with existence of sections 3/4.
- 20:00:26 [Ian]
- TB: Maybe that's a signal of problem with arch document.
- 20:00:29 [DanC]
- hmm... do we run the risk that none of the TAG member are going to read the "fluff"?
- 20:01:00 [TBray]
- I deny implying that the extra verbiage is "fluff" - just not sure some of it goes in this doc
- 20:01:11 [DanC]
- ah. good that Norm will read the fluff.
- 20:01:11 [Ian]
- RF: I'd be happier with two documents: one tutorial, one reference manual.
- 20:01:21 [DanC]
- ("fluff" was introduced into the conversation by Ian, btw)
- 20:01:23 [Ian]
- TBL: Crispness is important.
- 20:01:53 [Ian]
- TBL: There was a more fundamental problem I had reading this - hadn't gotten our terms right.
- 20:02:20 [Ian]
- TBL: Need to be cautious about use of terms like "resource".
- 20:02:22 [TBray]
- what TimBL said
- 20:02:36 [Stuart]
- +1
- 20:03:09 [Ian]
- TBL: I think it's important to highlight that "documents" are an important subset of things we can refer to with URIs.
- 20:03:27 [Stuart]
- q+
- 20:03:30 [Ian]
- ...I changed resource->document where I thought applied to documents but not all resources.
- 20:04:27 [DanC]
- Ian, please include $Author$ along with $Date$
- 20:04:46 [timmit]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0508-intro-tbl
- 20:04:59 [timmit]
- is my edited version of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0508-intro
- 20:06:30 [DanC]
- We call the things we share on the Web "resources". <-- scare-quotes are too informal. use <dfn>
- 20:06:38 [DanC]
- with an anchor.
- 20:07:07 [Ian]
- TBL: We don't represent telnet ports using data formats, even though telnet ports can be Web resources.
- 20:07:10 [Ian]
- DC: I don't agree.
- 20:07:50 [Ian]
- This may be issue httpRange-14
- 20:07:51 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14
- 20:08:12 [Ian]
- DC: You can use an HTTP proxy to get an HTML representation of a telnet port.
- 20:08:23 [Ian]
- DC: You can use an HTTP proxy to proxy any URI.
- 20:08:29 [Ian]
- RF: The representation could be a flash file....
- 20:08:53 [Ian]
- TBL: I don't believe that a telnet port is a document that can be represented. The telnet port "doesn't have a meaning."
- 20:09:33 [Ian]
- TB: I sent a lengthy email an hour ago to tag@w3.org that may help here.
- 20:09:40 [Ian]
- SW: I think we need a glossary.
- 20:09:59 [Stuart]
- q-
- 20:10:03 [Ian]
- Glossary: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0508-intro#glossary
- 20:10:14 [DanC]
- ... to argue AGAINST definitions out of context.
- 20:10:15 [Ian]
- TBL: Things in <strong> likely headed for glossary.
- 20:10:38 [Ian]
- IJ/DC: Don't define out of context; link back from glossary to context.
- 20:10:43 [timmit]
- Ian: agree.
- 20:11:20 [Ian]
- TB: XMLSpec has tools to highlight term definition/term reference.
- 20:11:34 [Ian]
- NW: Style sheets could be made to generate glossary...
- 20:11:37 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:14:15 [Ian]
- IJ: Three things to do:
- 20:14:16 [Ian]
- - Read email comments
- 20:14:21 [Ian]
- - Talk to RF/TBL on Friday at MIT
- 20:14:42 [Ian]
- - Split into more crisp arch piece and more tutorial-like piece.
- 20:15:47 [DanC]
- Stuart, rather than asking "are we done with ...", which noone can answer, I suggest either (a) "so, on to 1. URIEquivalence-15, unless anyone has more" or (b) any more on the architecture document?
- 20:16:12 [TBray]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002May/0039.html
- 20:17:06 [Ian]
- ==================================
- 20:17:18 [Ian]
- When to use Get update
- 20:17:30 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#whenToUseGet-7
- 20:17:47 [Ian]
- DC: People sent comments (LM, SW, TB).
- 20:17:52 [Ian]
- Draft findings:
- 20:17:57 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7
- 20:18:18 [Ian]
- TBL: Mention security issue in this document.
- 20:18:29 [Ian]
- TBL: Heading like "security considerations"
- 20:18:53 [Ian]
- TB: I think that all the things that need to be here are here. I think I agree with LM that GET-with-BODY is not essential but not harmful.
- 20:20:00 [Ian]
- DC: It may take me a long time to work a "must" into the finding.
- 20:20:51 [Ian]
- TB: In email example, "The latter design performed an unsafe operation (list subscription) in response to a request with a safe method (following the link from the mail message with GET). "
- 20:20:57 [Ian]
- TB: It doesn't say "Don't do this!"
- 20:21:29 [Ian]
- TB: So it needs a "must not" and a security heads-up.
- 20:21:58 [timmit]
- Beware that if you use GET for things with side-effects your system may be subject to malicious attack. For example, a malicous web page publisher outside a firewall may provide a link to something which would cause someone inside the firewall unwittingly to activate a function on another system within the firewall.
- 20:23:16 [Ian]
- SW: "All important resources should be identifiable by URI." This stands alone.
- 20:23:32 [Ian]
- SW: The "in particular" part is operational.
- 20:23:41 [Ian]
- TB: I liked SW's 1-2-3 list.
- 20:23:58 [Ian]
- TBL: This goes to show that you can make something crisp and people won't understand it.
- 20:24:37 [Ian]
- DC: At the ftf meeting, I thought that whether 2 or 3 points was editorial.
- 20:24:48 [Ian]
- TBL: Why is "using GET" subordinate?
- 20:25:46 [Ian]
- DC: The arch principle is that following links is safe.
- 20:25:50 [TBray]
- SW's input at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0085.html
- 20:25:57 [Ian]
- DC: Propfind follows the SW principle, but it's broken.
- 20:26:12 [Ian]
- SW: I offered two variants of the third one "following links" is loose.
- 20:26:33 [Ian]
- SW: I"ve offered -
- 20:27:08 [Ian]
- "users and user agents dereferencing a URI with safe access methods do not incur..."
- 20:27:21 [Ian]
- TBL: In HTTP, dereferencing is only "GET".
- 20:27:38 [DanC]
- yes, I suppose s/following links/dereferencing URIs/ is an improvement
- 20:27:39 [Ian]
- TBL: That's true of every URI scheme that supports dereferencing to get a document.
- 20:28:16 [Ian]
- DC: You don't incur an obligation by following a link. You can incur an obligation in other ways.
- 20:28:36 [Ian]
- TBL: Maybe the order of DC's sentence can be inverted.
- 20:29:02 [DanC]
- 2nded: Ian to do the rest.
- 20:29:23 [Ian]
- Action: IJ incorporate editorial input from this call and on the list. Beautify the finding. Send to www-tag with 1-week heads-up.
- 20:29:27 [Ian]
- ----------
- 20:29:28 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 20:29:29 [Zakim]
- -Stuart
- 20:29:30 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 20:29:30 [Zakim]
- -TBray
- 20:29:33 [Ian]
- Next meeting: one week from today.
- 20:29:34 [Ian]
- ADJOURNED
- 20:29:41 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 20:30:06 [Stuart]
- Ian, I'll give you a call tomorrow
- 20:30:38 [Ian]
- ok
- 20:30:43 [Stuart]
- bye...
- 20:30:48 [Stuart]
- Stuart has left #tagmem
- 20:31:36 [timmit]
- ACTION IAN put security mention in, clean up, send to www-tag
- 20:31:58 [Zakim]
- -TimBL
- 20:32:00 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 20:32:00 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
- 20:35:26 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop